Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review) - Update Software

Analysis 5.22. Comparison 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention, Outcome 22 Physical
function - Berg Balance scale.
Review: Physical fitness training for stroke patients
Comparison: 5 Mixed training versus control - end of intervention
Outcome: 22 Physical function - Berg Balance scale
Study or subgroup Training Control Std. Mean Difference Weight Std. Mean Difference
1 During usual care
N Mean(SD) N Mean(SD) IV,Random,95% CI IV,Random,95% CI
Richards 1993 9 33.2 (18.2) 8 28.4 (19.7) 13.8 % 0.24 [ -0.72, 1.20 ]
Richards 2004 31 46 (7) 31 47 (8) 31.9 % -0.13 [ -0.63, 0.37 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 40 39 45.7 % -0.05 [ -0.49, 0.39 ]
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.46, df = 1 (P = 0.50); I 2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 0.23 (P = 0.82)
2 After usual care
Duncan 1998 10 46.9 (3.63) 10 45.8 (5.39) 15.6 % 0.23 [ -0.65, 1.11 ]
Duncan 2003 50 4.36 (5.02) 50 1.7 (3.68) 38.7 % 0.60 [ 0.20, 1.00 ]
Subtotal (95% CI) 60 60 54.3 % 0.54 [ 0.17, 0.90 ]
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.0; Chi 2 = 0.56, df = 1 (P = 0.45); I 2 =0.0%
Test for overall effect: Z = 2.88 (P = 0.0040)
Total (95% CI) 100 99 100.0 % 0.26 [ -0.14, 0.66 ]
Heterogeneity: Tau 2 = 0.07; Chi 2 = 5.06, df = 3 (P = 0.17); I 2 =41%
Test for overall effect: Z = 1.26 (P = 0.21)
Test for subgroup differences: Chi 2 = 4.04, df = 1 (P = 0.04), I 2 =75%
Physical fitness training for stroke patients (Review)
Copyright © 2011 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-4 -2 0 2 4
Favours control Favours training
183